Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard Sri Archit Mehrotra learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant prays that he may be permitted to correct the name of the appellant, which is only a typing mistake.

3. Prayer is allowed. He may do so during the course of day. Office is directed to make necessary correction in the office record.

4. The appellant herein is Gautam Filling Station (owner of tanker No. UP 21-N/1123). The appellant has come up challenging the judgement and award dated 27.2.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Moradabad whereby a sum of Rs. 1,98,900/- with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition has been awarded.

5. In brief, the facts of this case are that on 27.4.2011 at about 6:30 pm claimant-Munnu Singh was standing by the side of the road and was having sugarcane juice. He was hit by tanker No. UP 21-N/1123, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the tanker. The tanker hit the sugarcane juice trolley and the claimant was injured. He was rushed to Vivekanand Hospital, Moradabad and had incurred about Rs. 4,00,000/- on his treatment. He became disable. The claimant is about 24 years and was working in Panchayat department and was drawing a salary of Rs. 11,000/- as Government servant.

6. Learned tribunal held that at the time of accident the tanker driver was not holding valid driving licence as at the time of accident the driver was driving tanker without there being any endorsement that he was authorized to drive transport vehicle carrying “dangerous and hazardous goods”. On the basis of the same, it was found that there was a breach of policy condition, and therefore, the insurance company, being the insurer of the tanker, was directed to first pay the amount with a right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Admittedly, the insurance company has paid the awarded amount and hence filed recovery proceedings against the appellant herein.

7. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that admittedly the offending vehicle is a transport vehicle and the driver was holding valid and effective licence to drive the tanker, which is a transport vehicle and he was authorized to drive the transport vehicle.

8. On issues No. 1 and 5 regarding factum and negligence, it was decided that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tanker driver and the claimant has not contributed to the negligence.

9. On issue No. 2, it was found that the tanker driver was having valid registration certificate and road permit.

10. Issue No. 3 was regarding validity of the driver licence. A photocopy of the driving licence of driver Satish Kumar was filed as paper No. 20-C by the owner to indicate that the driving licence was valid for LMV (private) and subsequently an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and passenger vehicle was also made. This driving licence was got verified by the insurance company and investigator report as well as the report on Form No. 54 was filed before the learned tribunal as paper No. 140C/2 and 140C/3 and Sri Shailendra Krishna Verma, Administrative Officer was produced as DW-1 by the appellant-company who proved the same. It was found by the learned tribunal that there was no endorsement for driving transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous and hazardous nature, and therefore, it was found that the driving licence was not valid for driving the tanker as was being done in the present case.

11. Issue No. 3 as decided by the learned tribunal is quoted as under:

^^fuLrkj.k okn fcUnq la[;k&3

1& ;g okn fcUnq bl vk'k; dk fufeZr gqvk gS fd D;k dfFkr nq?kZVuk ds le; Vsadj la0&;w0ih021 ,u&1123 ds pkyd ds ikl oSèk Mh0,y0 ugha Fkk

2& bl lEcU/k esa foi{kh la0&2 chek da0 dh vksj ls vius mRrj i= esa rn~uqlkj dFku fd;s x;s gSA

3& bl lEcU/k esa iz'uxr okgu ds Lokeh@foi{kh la0&1 }kjk lwph 17&d ls iz'uxr okgu ds pkyd lrh'k dq